|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Atheism = No beliefs? | |||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Useless semantic nitpicking. You know full well that the colloquial usage of the word (including the usage of Atheists themselves) is inclusive of both active disbelief and passive lack of belief. When one identifies oneself as "Atheist," it can mean either of those two, regardless of the strict dictionary definition or the word's Greek roots.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Why can't I consider this stuff to be a religion? Because you're using small subsets of Atheists to qualify the entire group as a religion. All B are A, but not all A are B, CS. Religions are typically identified as having a set of shared beliefs, traditions, philosophies, etc. Atheism as a whole shares none of these. Atheists on the whole cannot even agree whether god(s) are impossible or possible, or whether arguments for the existence of god(s) are simply not convincing. They are tied by a lack of belief, not by a shared belief. This is rather like identifying "non-Christians" as a religion, simply because all of thsoe in that subset would share a "disbelief" in Jesus. It's a non-starter, it's absurd, and it's stupid. Atheists don;t have any shared holidays. There is no "Yay, there are no gods" day. There is no shared philosophy. There are no moral dictates that come from not believing in deities. There are no shared religious texts, no preachers, no hymns, nothing. That a single subset has decided to group together and adopt some of the rituals, traditions and terminology of religion for Atheism does not in any way qualify Atheism in general as a religion. Besides - we already knew that religious Atheists existed, even without your Church of Atheism. Buddhists believe in no deities. Animists believe in no deities. Ancestor worshipers believe in no deities. Your arguments is simply absurd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
The claim was that atheism is no belief in a god and nothing more. Because that's all the word means without further qualifiers, CS. An Atheist can have more beliefs, but not necessarily so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Well I think you're right. Religion/religious is probably not the best word to describe them. But I do see parallels between them and their behavior and those of the extremely religious christians. Of course you do. Overzealousness for a cause (to the point of a polarized "Us vs. Them" tribalist mentality of conflict) has never been wholly monopolized by religion. You could say that the same parallels exist for certain environmentalists, or even the Tea Party nutjobs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I just might call them religious too! I've certainly seen some "religious" environmentalists out there. And yet the term doesn't usually apply. You're using the term "religious" to mean "any group that pursues a specific belief with extreme zeal." That definition is too broad, because it makes almost anything a religion if a subset of supporters are overly enthusiastic. In the context you're using, Republicanism could count as a religion. I certainly wouldn't say that's an accurate description. I'll agree that some Atheists (and Republicans, and environmentalists, and Nascar fans...) hold themselves to their beliefs or values or preferences with a zeal that is typically seen only in extremist religious followers. But I don't think that means it's appropriate to identify everything that you see characterized by an overabundance of enthusiasm and opposition for opposing views as "religious."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
So all humans are born atheists, according to you. Everyone is born a with a innate lack of belief in the supernatural. I've got some questions, 1. What genetic changes do I have to have in order to acquire a belief in the supernatural? 2. If belief, or lack of it is based on genetics, then why do people often switch from one viewpoint to another i.e naturalism to supernaturalism and vice versa? Wouldn't inherited traits remain lifelong? 3. From an evolutionary standpoint, does the fact that more people believe in some type of supernatural being and a very small % do not imply that lack of belief is inferior and therefore, a thing "unfit"? 4. If genes and natural selection decide whether or not I will be an atheist or theist, then I have absolutely no say whatsoever. So, form a geneticist's standpoint, can we predict what % of a couple's offspring will be supernaturalist and what % naturalist will be using genetics? Whoa, there, Doc. You misunderstand. It has nothign to do with genetics. A newborn baby does not yet believe in God. The word is meaningless to a child until the concept is explained. If you raise a child without ever telling him/her about Jesus, for example, the child will grow up not believing in Jesus, because he/she will have no idea what Jesus is in the first place. In this way, we are all born Atheists. We don't know what "Gods" are, let alone believe in them, when we're born.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Why not? If morality, an equally abstract concept, has everything to do with genetics, why not belief/disbelief? Where do you draw the line? Perhaps you'll respond with "well, morality is not abstract, I can see electrochemical reactions that manifest themselves as emotions externally." Still, the question remains. What part of man is the source of physically un-detectable ideas and concepts? If you agree that there is such a "abstract" center of thought, you are kind of compelled to believe in a thing which you can't see or touch..... Morality is not genetic per se. You aren't born with the concepts of "property" and "theft." Kids don't even immediately understand the concept of "death." Specific concepts of morality are rationally derived concepts, not instinctual or genetic. When we say that morality is a logical product of evolution, we simply mean that the benefits to a population as a whole from even basic "moral" instincts like compassion, philanthropy, not committing murder, etc are sufficient to give a selection bias in their favor. In any case, a child is still born without any beliefs at all. A newborn doesn;t believe in anything; babies don;t believe in Gods any more than they believe in fish or cars or airplanes. how could they believe in those things, when they've never seen them, and don;t even yet possess the capacity to understand language such that the concepts can be explained to them?
Well, when you can have genes that influence (or give rise to?) morality, why can't you have genes that determine your position irrespective of your external circumstances/exposure/knowledge? Do you rule out the possibility of finding this to be fact pretty dogmatically? I rule it out by knowing that kids are basically blank slates at first. If you ask a newborn, "do you believe in God," the response will be either "babababthpppppp," crying, silence, or something else unintelligible. The baby doesn't understand the question, or the concept the question addresses; how can the child possess a belief yet not have the faintest idea what it is he/she believes in?
My point is, you can never see the chemical basis (I don't think there is) for a person's belief/disbelief. Does this bother the naturalist who holds that nature is all there is? IS he comfortable with allowing a certain aspect of man that not tangible? Every thought in your mind is nothing more than a series of complex electrochemical reactions between neurons. In that sense, everything you think, believe, feel, etc has a "chemical basis." We can watch the thoughts form on an MRI. But this doesn't address the point of children. If a child doesn't have any idea what "god" is, how can the child believe in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Indeed God's Word is living and effective, sharper than any two edged sword. It penetrates and devides soul and spirit. joints and marrow; It judges the reflections and thought of the Heart. If you Believe what you Like in the Gospel and Rejects what you do not like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself. Quoting scripture is only effective for those who already believe it has some value. For the rest of us...you may as well quote from Harry Potter for all the effect you'll have.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024